Rubio distanced himself from his own bill, refusing to defend its security provisions…Yet Rubio has been defending the bill far and wide, even appearing in an ad on its behalf–an ad that touts the bill’s security provisions. If he’s filmed this ad for the bill, he ought to be able to defend its security provisions. If he can’t defend the security provisions as they now stand, why did he consent to be included in the ad?

…As it stands, Rubio’s Hannity performance is puzzling and incoherent…If this is the best case supporters of Schumer-Rubio can make to conservatives, then there is no serious conservative case for this bill.

So can we expect an hour-long program in which Sessions or a comparably knowledgeable opponent of the anti-amnesty position appears with Hannity? Don’t hold your breath. The powers-that-be at Fox appear to be in the tank for the Schumer-Rubio bill.

Rubio is advancing a bill he can’t say will be effective… an admission that he has abdicated his responsibility as a legislator.

…how can Rubio write and sponsor legislation on such an important issue when he (1) cannot say that the legislation will be effective (indeed, he basically said it won’t be effective under a liberal Democratic administration such as the one we have now) and (2) concedes if it isn’t effective it shouldn’t pass?

The immediate answer to this question is that Rubio simply is not too bright. But beyond that, he has already proven willingness to flatly lie in support of this bill. Why should his alleged reservations be given any credence?